§ MR. STOREY (Sunderland)With your permission, Sir, I beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board a question of which I have given him private notice; and as the matter is one that is personal both to him and to myself, I trust the House will allow me very briefly to recall the circumstances. On Tuesday night last I named the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board as one whose vote I asked should be disallowed because he was pecuniarily interested in the matter affected by the Bill. I was not allowed to make the Motion, and the hon. Member rose and, as I understood him, stated to the House that his only connection with the matter was that he had lent his brother money, and that he was not a shareholder in a brewery. I say that is what I understood him to say. A great many other hon. Members on this side of the House also understood the same, and I am bound to say, having examined a very large number of the principal newspapers of the country, I find that, almost without exception, that was the idea conveyed to them. For instance, the Times—if that can be called a principal newspaper—says: "Mr. Long and Sir M. Hicks Beach have denied that they were interested in any brewery."
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am bound to say that what occurred took place in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees is the sole judge of it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to make any Motion, but if he does I think it ought to be in Committee, provided that fresh circumstances have occurred that would justify the re opening of the question. If the hon. Member is going to ask a question he would be in order.
§ MR. STOREYThat is what I am going to do—to ask a question. I am 1507 bound to say that since the hon. Gentleman made his statement in Committee he has sent a letter to the Times, in which he states that he did inform the Committee that he was a shareholder in a brewery company. I, for one, accept that statement. My questions to the hon. Gentleman, are these: (1.) Washenot one of the founders of the Bath Brewery Company? (2.) Does not his name appear on the Memorandum of Association? (3.) Was he not, and is he not now, one of the directors and chairman of the company, receiving the usual fees? {4.) Has he not all along been, and is he not now, an ordinary shareholder, entitled to his proportion of the profits of the company, and has not the said Brewery Company in its possession no less than 90 tied houses, which are affected by this Bill?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long, Wilts,) DevizesI desire, in the first place, to thank the hon. Member for Sunderland for the very full and sufficient notice he was good enough to give me of his intention to bring forward this subject. I desire also to thank him for having given me this opportunity of making a short, and I hope a satisfactory, explanation to the House. I make no complaint of the fact that the hon. Gentleman did not carry away from the Committee that impression of my remarks which I intended to convoy. I desire to apologise to the House for not expressing myself on that occasion so clearly and fully as I ought to have done. I hope the House will allow me to say in excuse for this omission on my part that I was completely taken aback at the moment. I had no notice that such a question was to be referred to, and was not in the House when the hon. Member for Cirencester made his speech. I did at the time feel somewhat acutely what appeared to be an imputation implying dishonourable motives inconnection with my Parliamentary action. With reference to the question, Was I not one of the founders of the Bath Brewery Company? I am not quite sure what a "founder" is. I had no interest in this company until I was asked by local gentlemen personally known to me if I would accept that position in the company, and I said I 1508 would if all things were satisfactorily and properly conducted, Secondly, I believe my name does appear as one of the first shareholders. I should like to be allowed to add that my interest in this concern amounts to £1,000, and that I am chairman, and receive my fees as such. I believe the statement as to the tied houses to be correct. I feel I owe an explanation to the House as to why it was that when the question was raised I did not enter upon this point. The fact is, as I have already said, that I was somewhat taken aback, and, in the second place, my attention was directed solely to the point raised by the hon. Member. I admit that it ought not to have been so, but for the moment it did not occur to mo that my position as the Chairman or a Director of the Company was a matter which I ought to have mentioned to the Committee. I did mention the fact that I was a shareholder. I should like to be allowed to add that after I sat down it occurred to me that I had not sufficiently taken the Committee into my confidence. I went into the Lobby and consulted one or two hon. Gentlemen as to whether I ought to add a further statement to what I had said. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House assured me that my statement was sufficiently complete, and, following their advice, I did not make any further statement. I hope the House will believe what I most sincerely assure them, that I had no intention whatever of concealing my connection with this Brewery Company or in any way minimising my position with regard to it. My desire was to state fully what my position was, and I very much regret I omitted to state I was Chairman of that Company. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving mo this opportunity of correcting what I said.
§ MR. STOREYPerhaps the House will allow me to say I accept the statement made by the hon. Gentleman with willingness, fully believing that he acted from pure inadvertence. But, of course, in saying that, I still retain my own conviction that it is not desirable that this Bill should be pushed forward by the votes of Members interested in the trade.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!